The last US government shutdown was between Dec 2018 and Jan 2019. There were also government shutdowns in 2018 and 2013. Will the US government shutdown by the end of 2024 for any amount of time?
Additional clarification by Manifold admins: "Any amount of time" includes a technical shutdown in the situation where the current president does not sign by the applicable deadline needed to extend funding. If only a portion of the government is unfunded and shut down this will still resolve to yes.
1,000
3.00Fun to discover that literally all these arguments were in fact already made on a market for the similar situation back in March. Seems like something Manifold might want to have paid attention to when they sweepified this one! @Joshua argued very persuasively that such a scenario as occurred in March and last night does not count as a shutdown.
@polymathematic Yeah I think the Kalshi criteria are generallybetter than the Poly criteria, and sold all my shares here when I wasn't sure which way this would work.
A while after the clarification was issued, I then bought all these shares because I was sure Biden would not sign by midnight.
For future shutdown markets I do recommend not counting technical shutdowns, no reason to be weighed down by suboptimal precedent.
@Joshua to be clear, I’m not saying your (persuasive and correct IMO) arguments on the March thread should apply to this market post-clarification. I think the clarification was insufficient, but that’s neither here nor there at this point. This market should certainly resolve YES now. My broader concern is that a bunch of other shutdown markets without this “clarification” are now being pushed to resolve YES. Second to that, it is frustrating to now see people argue that the March precedent should be ignored or simply wasn’t that thought through. Clearly many people thought about it a lot, the linked market resolved to no shutdown, and all these other shutdown markets remained open for the rest of the year. For my (pretend) money, that’s dispositive.
When @MarcusAbramovitch wakes up from his slumber he will be so surprised that the government came to a standstill as they were shutdown all morning waiting for Biden to sign the bill. 😲
Yo @mods Why does the 2025 version of this market 404 now? I didn't even know that was an option.
Here's the link to it, or you can navigate to it through @MarcusAbramovitch 's profile page.
https://manifold.markets/MarcusAbramovitch/will-there-be-a-us-government-shutd-094b79ec1d06
Just gonna re-up this, but it would be a very irresponsible precedent to set by resolving this NO.
(and by the way, I currently have zero shares in this market so I'm hopefully unbiased)
The government did technically "shut down" at midnight. If you were a federal employee, you would absolutely:
1) have received official communications telling you that this could be a possibility a couple days ago
2) have received follow-up communications around midnight telling you that DESPITE the government shutting down, there was a high likelihood it would be a technical shutdown (ie, very short) and thus, most offices would be allowing work to continue, retroactively funded after the funding bill was enacted
I don't really understand how people can argue that it didn't shut down, just because a majority of mainstream media sources are reporting for the average reader's understanding.
Imagine a market on whether a SpaceX flight would "launch" and the criteria had been defined as liftoff from the pad.
Now, imagine that the spaceship explodes a few hundred feet in the air, and all news sources report this as "SpaceX launch fails". Did the launch happen? Yes, it did, despite the reporting being geared towards the average reader's understanding of the situation!
This is a prediction market platform! If we don't resolve markets to the definitional "letter of the law", we basically invite market creators to resolve markets subjectively and unpredictably, according to their own set of invisible criteria based on vibes, popularity, the loud majority of bettors, etc...
Edited: And let me add, it should not matter if this was incorrectly left open in March. It should have resolved YES then, and it should resolve YES now.
Bragging about your fake money profit?
Or bragging about your $5 profit on sweeps?
I'd argue my fake money Chart is better because I used to give away all my mana to users that participated in my markets through leaderboards.
Either way, bragging about fake money is real stupid.
@benshindel it would actually be super helpful to read such communications. Any chance you could get one of your colleagues in federal gov to share emails they received around midnight with us?
@benshindel I think the lack of resolution for other technical shutdowns does matter (if they happened, I’m having trouble verifying those from my phone) does imply that something more substantial has to occur for the resolution criteria to be met, especially for a recently sweeped market.
@benshindel As someone who has run SpaceX Launch Markets for over a year, if the launch fails, it's a failed launch regardless if it launched off the ground 1cm or near HK line. 😆
@SirCryptomind If the criteria was defined as a liftoff from the pad and it did liftoff, it should resolve Yes.
@bagelfan Imagine @SirCryptomind changing it to this criteria a couple hours before launch after months of users trading and not including a launch a few months ago where it did liftoff from the pad but did not actually liftoff. Whatever enjoy your earnings @bagelf*ck no need to keep rubbing this in our face merry Christmas go buy yourself some self-actualization.
@Predictor @jim why did you bail out the second most annoying user on this website? (UFO guy mogs in this category)
@NicoDelon I personally received emails to this effect. No I will not be screenshotting them, because I'm fairly sure that's a crime of some kind, but...
@Predictor isn't that like your whole shtick on this site? being rude to other people? I'm Jewish and I don't need Jesus to forgive me, but you already knew that didn't you...
@benshindel As we mentioned earlier, the fact that the market did not resolve earlier for March clearly led many people to reasonably believe funding gaps did not count. It makes zero sense for admins to have sweepified the market thinking that the market should have resolved YES immediately based on March. If so, they should've resolved the market YES immediately.
Clearly, the admins just weren't aware of the March shutdown when they sweepified this, and as a result they misled a lot of people.
The fact that the clarification was posted a mere 4 hours before midnight also makes the clarification more suspect. Another market with the exact same wording but no clarification was at 9% when it closed at the same time as this market was resolved, showing that the clarification had an enormous effect on the attitude of traders in this market. Such a massive clarification that completely changes the value of the market from 9% to 90% shouldn't have been posted a mere 4 hours before the deadline.
https://manifold.markets/justifieduseofFallibilism/will-there-be-a-us-government-shutd-30cb42cc9269
@spiderduckpig While many YES voters claim that resolving N/A would have taken away their money, the fact is that money was gained purely from traders who voted NO because they were reasonably led into believing technical shutdowns didn't count based on the description not including March as a shutdown and the fact the market hadn't resolved in March.